"The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history."Winston Churchill

Quote from chronicle of Marcus Lucanus of the Roman civil war: Caesar said :"Here I abandoned peace and desecrated law; fortune it is you I follow. Farewell to treaties. From now on war is our judge!Caesar men cheered :" Hail Caesar! We who are about to die salute you!

Some of it sounds good, but it will never get done. Also I don't think that the wealth tax is good. "Institute a new annual Federal Wealth Tax of 0.8% of net worth, exempting household net worth up to about $500,000 for a typical family, and additional 0.5% taxes on net worths over about $1 million and $3 million." This is the same as Obama taxing only taxing people who make over $250,000. It will drive people not to work harder. Why should they earn 250 when 249 will be fine. So they work half as hard and either lay off some workers (because they are a s corp to start with) or cut the workers time as not to earn the 250. I think that when lass that half of the people pay taxes (like we are today), they are a drain on the country and the country is doomed.

I'm about as anti tax as they come! I don't see how taxing the wealthy can accomplish anything but votes for Obummer. Flat tax rate seems fair and equitable.

Scott

Logged

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

i like the flat tax if everyone is taxed. if not, the fair tax is better because we can control (in theory) how much we are taxed by how much we consume. neither will happen because the powers that be are afraid they'll get less of our money to waste....and of course, they won't tax "poor" people because that's not PC.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Fair tax. That way you are taxed on how much you spend, not make. Save your money if you don't want to pay taxes. It will allow people to work more, make more, have more. Cut out paper work, no 1099, 941, 940, SS, w-2, w-3, w-4, Medicare tax crap. Work and make your money, 100% of it. Day labor, contract workers, imported worker, and cash workers will pay taxes. Finally.

true enough. i still think there would be so many exceptions that it would not work. even with the fair tax, they will exempt food, medicine, and i'd anticipate some kind of exemption card for those under a certain income. they simply will not do a tax that everyone pays.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

But realize that the lower class wage earners may be poor for here in the US, but compared world wide, they live like kings. Most of the people in the world spend half of their income/ resources on food. Here in the US, 10% or our money is spent on food. But to be fair, I believe that the poor should be exempt from the fair tax. But that number should not be 50% of the population that does not pay taxes today.

there appear casually to be several bullet points in the highlighted web site that are somewhat to totally contradictory with other bullet points on the same page.

first a question for my fellow citizens....1) do you think we have a progressive income tax system at the federal level?

hardwood writes:I don't see how taxing the wealthy can accomplish anything but votes for Obummer. Flat tax rate seems fair and equitable.

tecumseh:hopefully hardwood you will know that I ain't pickin' on you here, but these two lines just require a bit of additional elaboration.

What it accomplishes is very long term in nature (but once you get there, you ain't going back) which is it limits ALL the chips from falling into the hands of a very few folks (the extremely rich) and establishing a permanent economic aristocracy. The economic data when compared to marginal tax rate and who owns what from the last century reinforces this thinking. It would be extremely difficult to look at the data and come to any other conclusion without highly spinning the data or logical thinking.

At the current time our federal tax system (see question 1 above) is somewhat to highly regressive and has been this way for about 30 years. So a flat tax means that you would need to raise the marginal tax rate on the very highest income tax earners to even get to some flat tax. A flat tax (by itself) will not halt the likely hood that all the chips will eventually all rest on the RMIT side of the table. A flat tax would (relative to the regressive tax rate now in full force) make this transition take a bit longer.

There are much more simply ways/strategies of reducing this inequity if your really wished to come to some flat tax.

One does wonder why some folks think 'the rich' are so highly in need of being protected and shielded from caring their own fair share of the economic load.

What it accomplishes is very long term in nature (but once you get there, you ain't going back) which is it limits ALL the chips from falling into the hands of a very few folks (the extremely rich) and establishing a permanent economic aristocracy. The economic data when compared to marginal tax rate and who owns what from the last century reinforces this thinking. It would be extremely difficult to look at the data and come to any other conclusion without highly spinning the data or logical thinking.

that's called redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx wrote all about it.wealth is not static. one person being wealthy does not cause another to be poor.

Quote

One does wonder why some folks think 'the rich' are so highly in need of being protected and shielded from caring their own fair share of the economic load.

perhaps because (see above) so many people think it's ok to take what someone has earned and give it to someone else.

since the economic theory of Marxism has been tried, we know that it does create and economic aristocracy. the middle class is destroyed and all become equally poor....except those in charge of the redistribution. wealth is created in the private sector, not by the manipulations of the government.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

first a question for my fellow citizens....1) do you think we have a progressive income tax system at the federal level?

tecumseh,

I believe we do. From 2007 Federal Tax data, we have the following: The top 1% of income earners average tax rate was 22.5%, the top 5% it was 20.5%, the top 10% it was 18.8%, the top 25% it was 16%, and the top 50% it was 14.03%. For the bottom 50% of income (making less than 32,000 per year), the average tax rate was 3.00%. That seems pretty progressive to me. Said another way, the top 50% of earners paid in 97% of federal taxes and the bottom 50% paid in 3%.

Quote

So a flat tax means that you would need to raise the marginal tax rate on the very highest income tax earners to even get to some flat tax.

That doesn't make sense to me....If I simply take the total adjusted gross income for the entire country (8.8 trillion) and divide by the total tax paid ($1.1 trillion), I get 13%.

How can you make an argument that the rich don't pay their fair share?

They'll never change it... To many high income jobs are created by making our taxation system hard to understand. If they were building it from scratch they might do it right but no politician wants to take the rap for thousands of accountants losing their jobs to something as simple as efficiancy. Remember... accountants have to pay taxes to. Better to keep them busy and paying their "fair" share.

Logged

If it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger... Or maims you for life.

Here's a site that got some interesting figures and percentages . Who know what the real figures are ? Probably scare the h#ll out of us if we really knew. http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Profiles/DavidCayJohnston?OpenDocument The author David Cay JohnstonDavid Cay Johnston is a Tax Notes columnist. The Washington Monthly calls him "one of the country's most important journalists" and the Portland Oregonian says his work is the equal of Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair and Lincoln Steffens. At The New York Times, Johnston received a 2001 Pulitzer Prize for exposing tax loopholes and inequities. He now teaches the tax, property and regulatory law of the ancient world at Syracuse University College of Law and Whitman School of Management. He is the author of two bestsellers on taxes, Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch. His next book, The Fine Print, will be published in 2011.

Logged

Little John_________________________________________

"The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history."Winston Churchill

Quote from chronicle of Marcus Lucanus of the Roman civil war: Caesar said :"Here I abandoned peace and desecrated law; fortune it is you I follow. Farewell to treaties. From now on war is our judge!Caesar men cheered :" Hail Caesar! We who are about to die salute you!

"- Eliminate corporate taxes (the human owners are taxed instead, see below)" - from the article.Ok I will assume the writer is being honest, but lacks information. a Class C corporation pays 15% on Profit at minimum, The "owners" are taxed on salary, if they are salaried employees - if the owners are "shareholders" but not employees, then their dividends are taxed as "unearned income" , unless no dividends are issued, either way the corporation is taxed on its profit (income) and the shareholders & employees are taxed as seperate cases (nobody misses the fun under this category). It's listed as one of the disadvantages of incorporating a business in even a basic business course "double taxation". A sub chapter S corporation is not taxed at all -still a corporation - but considered to be a "small business" (IRS code will explain where sub S is no longer allowable) Under sub S the corporation is not taxed, but the owners and shareholders are still taxed accordingly.So by either honest mistake or deliberate disinformation The author has completly missed the truth in that part of the present tax code and has made it difficult for me to take any of the rest seriously.I have some family who know some seriously rich people (yes, Rich, with a capital R-I-C-H) And some of them claim that they really don't pay enough in tax (I believe there's a spot on the tax form where you can "donate" into the tax fund - I can't swear to that though - I hate reading those things - I don't even contribute to the $1 for presidential campaigns thing) I also think a flat tax would be fair "X-percent per person" once they are above the poverty line, if they are below the poverty line, they still pay a NO REFUND tax, but at a much lower rate.

I still can't believe people think this countries problems are based on "someone else" is not paying enough taxes. Before asking someone else to pay more,ask what you have received for what you paid in. Do you really think you're getting your monies worth? Do you think tax money could be be better manged if it stayed closer to home?If people would take as much time to see where the tax money is going,the burden could be quickly lightened upon all of us.The sooner people get over the idea that government should take something that belongs to someone else and give it to them,the sooner we can shrink the government.Not all the rich were born that way. Most of them got there by taking risks others wouldn't and by merely working most of their waking hours.If thats a crime punishable by taxes,America should be ashamed. I try not to vote for Robin Hoods.If a man and wife would both work 70 to 80 hours a week and are now classified as "rich"where do people think that just because they bust their rear ends that they should give that money back,and not keep it just because they worked hard for it. Would these same people asking that the rich pay more be willing to work another 20 hours a week to donate the money to others? I doubt it. If you take the incentives away from the producers,soon you will have no producers.And sadly this already is happening in this country.

I agree, and that doesn't even address taxes that PUNISH the poor - like gasoline, the tax is per-gallon, and some poor working stiffs can't just run out and upgrade from the gas hog they're holding together with bubble gum and duct tape. - so you get a person who can least afford it driving a 12MPG or lower clunker - spending a higher amount in gas tax (more gallons consumed), just to get back and forth to work.I saw an interveiw with some politician (I bet someone knows who) when the interviewer said the tax dollars are "our" money, the politician quickly said "First off, it's not your money." - good thing I wasn't in the same room, my hand probably woulda slapped him before I knew where it had been.

tshnc writes:How can you make an argument that the rich don't pay their fair share?

tecumseh:all you need do is consider more than one tax collected by the us government (considering all variable in this question of total tax paid/income class is likely impossible). if you need a reference which confirms this notion of a regressive tax (the author admits not being capable of considering every variable in this issue) go to Kevin Phillips 'Wealth and Democracy'. His analysis is presented in a nice graph (I do not have page number so you will need to find the graph yourself). He also presents a nice case for what has happened to this countries wealth when we had a progressive income tax vs the regressive income tax.

kathyp writes:that's called redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx wrote all about it.

tecumseh:so did Adam Smith, but then you have already admitted to not knowing that author. as far as I know Adam Smith was also the first economist (heck he was the first economist) who noted why wealth needed to be redistributed.

another kathyp snip:since the economic theory of Marxism has been tried, we know that it does create and economic aristocracy. the middle class is destroyed and all become equally poor....except those in charge of the redistribution. wealth is created in the private sector, not by the manipulations of the government.

tecumseh:it seems you are confusing what Marx suggested from what is commonly known as 'communist russian' or 'communist china'. neither are or were a true reflection of what Marx suggested (which just between you me and the gate post was likely totally unworkable due to certain basic components of human nature Marx did not address). as far as I can tell both countries traded genetic aristocratic for an aristocratic bureaucracy. beyond the player not much changed.

for wealth to be created and reinvested in an efficient way a stable political system is necessary and essential before the fact. therefore wealth generation is dependent on the political system that acts as the foundation of the economic system. at the current time about 1/3 of the wealth of this nation is created via financial instruments which are somewhat to totally dependent on government law and participation.

so did Adam Smith, but then you have already admitted to not knowing that author

i would have to be much older than i am! i stand by what i said.

you need to go back and read Marx. he was all about bringing everyone to the muddy middle. unfortunately, it didn't work so well. hasn't worked anywhere regardless of the degrees of implementation.

Marx did not envision the kind of government that Russia or China chose. his was a workers paradise where all worked for the good of each other and the state worked for the good of the people. everything shared, everyone working, no one going without..... he could have boiled his entire writings down to one paragraph :-Dwhat he forgot to factor in was human nature.his was another example of how theory did not translate into reality.

tchumseh, i love a good debate, but there needs to be a starting point. i don't mean this unkindly, but i am of the impression that you throw stuff out for the sake of argument, but not for the sake of debate. debate takes preparation and knowledge. i think we might be lacking that in our conversations?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

first a question for my fellow citizens....1) do you think we have a progressive income tax system at the federal level?

tecumseh,

I believe we do. From 2007 Federal Tax data, we have the following: The top 1% of income earners average tax rate was 22.5%, the top 5% it was 20.5%, the top 10% it was 18.8%, the top 25% it was 16%, and the top 50% it was 14.03%. For the bottom 50% of income (making less than 32,000 per year), the average tax rate was 3.00%. That seems pretty progressive to me. Said another way, the top 50% of earners paid in 97% of federal taxes and the bottom 50% paid in 3%.

Quote

So a flat tax means that you would need to raise the marginal tax rate on the very highest income tax earners to even get to some flat tax.

Tsh, You are what terrifies me about conservatives, your "another way of saying it" is completely corked.By the figures you listed we have no idea what percentage the lowest 50% paid in terms of total taxes collected. All we know is that they paid 3% of their income. But given that they are 50% of the tax paying population they may have paid 15-20% of the total revenue generated. It's still not 50%, but your summation ( as written) is just plain wrong and devoid anything like factual context.

Tsh, You are what terrifies me about conservatives, your "another way of saying it" is completely corked.By the figures you listed we have no idea what percentage the lowest 50% paid in terms of total taxes collected. All we know is that they paid 3% of their income. But given that they are 50% of the tax paying population they may have paid 15-20% of the total revenue generated. It's still not 50%, but your summation ( as written) is just plain wrong and devoid anything like factual context.

Beek4018,

They did not pay 15-20% of their income towards Federal Income Tax. From the table I was looking at, I took the following: 50% (70ish million) people filing income tax returns in 2007 made less than $33,000 per year. Out of that total population of people, they paid a total of $32.2 Billion in federal taxes out of the total federal revenue of $1.12 Trillion. So my statement is correct (I believe) that the lowest 50% contributed 3% of the total federal revenue.

stats say that about 47% are paying no federal income tax at all. they do have federal tax withheld if they are working, but when you consider earned income credit, etc. they are often getting back more than is withheld. 47% of the population that has no vested interest in how tax dollars are spent or who pays for their "stuff". 47% who will vote for the candidate that protects their "stuff", but not the tax dollars that pay for the stuff.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....